If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

IRS & Same Sex Marriage

Does this make any sense at all?

Though the ruling will cover all legal same-sex marriages entered into in the states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory, or a foreign country, it will not apply to “domestic partnerships, civil unions, or similar formal relationships recognized under state law,” the Treasury Department’s statement says.

The IRS is going to treat same-sex marriages in the same way it treats heterosexual marriage. Okay. I understand that. HOWEVER, if a state only recognizes a "civil union", the IRS will NOT treat that couple as "married". THAT I do NOT understand.

If a heterosexual couple has only a "civil union" in front of a justice of the peace, are they not married for IRS tax purposes? If a same-sex couple are atheists, and are quite happy to have a "civil union" without the use of the word "marriage", why would they be treated differently?

Will this cause a migration of same-sex couples from states that offer civil unions to states that offer "marriage"? That would be an interesting unintended consequence.

I wonder if Lois Lerner came up with this rule that seems to fly in the face of "equality"?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

A civil union is not the same as a marriage. In some states that allow them, people who have civil unions have all the rights of married couples, but that is not true in the majority of them. It is not unsurprising that the federal government has decided not to treat them as equal also.

A couple that gets married in front of a justice of the peace are considered married. In some states they can request a civil union if the are not a same sex couple, but why would they when they would likely have less rights and benefits of being married. I wanted to provide examples, but it would have been to time intensive to do so, because each state has its own laws and they differ greatly in the benefits provided.

A couple that gets married in a church would not have their marriage recognized if they did not file for a marriage certificate. The government doesn't recognize religion so it is not so much the ceremony that matters, but the certificate for getting married. A great example would be polygamous families who do not receive the same benefits as being married, but considered married by their churches.

A same sex couple that is married in Vermont, would not be considered married here in Michigan.

The point I am trying to get to is that civil unions are not the same as marriages.

Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

After parts of DOMA were over turned the IRS needed to update its policies to comply with the law.

Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

HOw is the iRS allowed to make up it's own rules? Where is this a law passed by congress?

Originally Posted by Henlee

After parts of DOMA were over turned the IRS needed to update its policies to comply with the law.

IMO what is happening here is the liberal left is trying to get the IRS to recognize domestic "partnerships" to force States with impending litigation into recognizing same sex unions...Its like the premise in the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" where John Payne shows that the US Post Office recognizes the existence of Santa Claus so therefore he does exist..

FTR I say leave it up to the individual states,I am not against civil unions since I do have a nephew who lives in Mass with his domestic partner

All my Exes live in Texas

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

Bon, that would only make sense if they were recognizing domestic partnerships and civil unions. They are not. I would say this is showcasing a failure in the civil union idea. It is separate and unequal. I really feel this comes down to do we want the government to choose how we live our lives?

Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

The IRS is going to treat same-sex marriages in the same way it treats heterosexual marriage. Okay. I understand that. HOWEVER, if a state only recognizes a "civil union", the IRS will NOT treat that couple as "married". THAT I do NOT understand.

If a heterosexual couple has only a "civil union" in front of a justice of the peace, are they not married for IRS tax purposes? If a same-sex couple are atheists, and are quite happy to have a "civil union" without the use of the word "marriage", why would they be treated differently?

Will this cause a migration of same-sex couples from states that offer civil unions to states that offer "marriage"? That would be an interesting unintended consequence.

I wonder if Lois Lerner came up with this rule that seems to fly in the face of "equality"?

NOt understanding the Jusice of the Peace part of it. Plenty of people got a marraige license (not a civil union thing) and were married by a Justice of the Peace. Dh and I did because we were having conflicts with ministers, their rules, and any way to both of us to agree on any one of their nonsense. We ended up with the ceremony we both agreed on and a building we both could agree upon. We ended up getting married in a church that is not a church that many of you have seen on the news last December.

Bon, that would only make sense if they were recognizing domestic partnerships and civil unions. They are not. I would say this is showcasing a failure in the civil union idea. It is separate and unequal. I really feel this comes down to do we want the government to choose how we live our lives?

Since I feel it is the word "marriage", with its religious connotation that has caused a lot of the problem, why can't Congress simply pass a very simple law that the Federal govt will view all those types of household relationships equally?

WRT to taxes. this is the part where Jesus says, "Render unto Caeser ..."

So, I do not think it comes down to how the govt wants us to live our lives. The rules for assessing taxes should recognize various household living situations in an equitable way. These guys we elect should be able to come up with a simple definition that could accomplish that. If they think they are so much smarter than the rest of us, and know what's best for us, surely such task is not beyond these geniuses?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.